[semi-extrinsic]

Already, in the case of Israel vs. Palestinian resistance, we're talking teenagers throwing rocks and people firing WW2-class rocket artillery, versus one of the most high-tech and well-funded armies (with very good, uncontested air support) in the world.

With robots involved it would most definitely be a one-sided reduction in casualties, but it already is so one-sided I'm not sure that it would meaningfully alter the numbers in that conflict. Take the 2014 Israel-Gaza war, for instance (numbers from Wikipedia):

Israel: 70 casualties, 90% military.

Gaza: around 2 500 casualties, 30-40% military (depending on source, but even Israel estimates <50%).

[reitanqild]

Worth mentioning: the side that has the biggest causualities is the one who keeps attacking first. The only reason why more Israelis aren't hurt seems to be that they put a lot of effort into shielding their civilians.

There is little doubt that if stabbings, rocket attacks etc stopped Israel would stop as well.

... and, there is also little reason for doubt that if Israel stopped first it wouldn't stop attacks against them, quite on the contrary there is reason to believe they would escalate if left alone.

PS: while I feel this was worth mentioning I was not the one to downvote you, I think you argued reasonably.

[crdoconnor]

>Worth mentioning: the side that has the biggest causualities is the one who keeps attacking first. >There is little doubt that if stabbings, rocket attacks etc stopped Israel would stop as well.

Every violent action by both sides is framed as a retaliation for previous wrongs.

It's almost impossible to prove conclusively who started the tit for tat in almost all cases. However, if you do an analysis of most media stories or news reports in the US, there's a curious degree of unanimity about it.

Dismissing the proportionality of the responses (which you can measure) in favor of focusing of "who started it?" (which you can't), is effectively prioritizing propaganda over facts.